Harvey Hudson v. United States

539 F. App'x 310

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: September 26, 2013
• Docket: 13-6106
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6106

HARVEY J. HUDSON,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:12-hc-02161-D)

Submitted: September 24, 2013 Decided: September 26, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harvey J. Hudson, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Harvey J. Hudson, a District of Columbia prisoner,

seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2241, 2254 (West 2006 & Supp. 2013) petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Madley v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 278 F.3d

1306, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (“We conclude that a court of the

District [of Columbia] is a state court for the purpose of

[§ 2253(c)].”). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard

by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the

prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural

ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable

claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Hudson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

2 deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

grant Hudson in forma pauperis status. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED